Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Se está descargando tu SlideShare. ×

Leigh-Chantelle's OCURA2020 Presentation on Preschoolers and their Engagement with Social Robots

Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Próximo SlideShare
St ritakontichtaskdesign
St ritakontichtaskdesign
Cargando en…3
×

Eche un vistazo a continuación

1 de 27 Anuncio

Leigh-Chantelle's OCURA2020 Presentation on Preschoolers and their Engagement with Social Robots

Descargar para leer sin conexión

Here's a presentation I gave as part of the Online Conference for Undergraduate Research Australia (OCURA). It's about my psychology Honours thesis research project on social robots and how preschoolers interact with them.

My thesis is due the end of October, so not all the results are presented, but I hope you get a great introduction to this project that has taken up a lot of my time this year.

WATCH the video on YouTube: https://youtu.be/5jILy4mLH_Y

Here's a presentation I gave as part of the Online Conference for Undergraduate Research Australia (OCURA). It's about my psychology Honours thesis research project on social robots and how preschoolers interact with them.

My thesis is due the end of October, so not all the results are presented, but I hope you get a great introduction to this project that has taken up a lot of my time this year.

WATCH the video on YouTube: https://youtu.be/5jILy4mLH_Y

Anuncio
Anuncio

Más Contenido Relacionado

Similares a Leigh-Chantelle's OCURA2020 Presentation on Preschoolers and their Engagement with Social Robots (20)

Más de Leigh-Chantelle (10)

Anuncio

Más reciente (20)

Leigh-Chantelle's OCURA2020 Presentation on Preschoolers and their Engagement with Social Robots

  1. 1. LEIGH-CHANTELLE KOCH^, MICHELLE NEUMANN*, JASON ZAGAMI*, & DAVID NEUMANN^ Online Conference for Undergraduate Research in Australia (OCURA), 17 September 2020 INVESTIGATINGYOUNGCHILDREN’S BEHAVIOURSANDEXPERIENCESWHEN INTERACTINGWITHASOCIALROBOT ^GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY *GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION & PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
  2. 2. Greater access to new technologies in home and education Social robots used in aged care, personal care, and education Social robots process information and create expected outcomes e.g., engaging with humans in conversation aka human-robot interactions (HRI; Moktar, 2019) Social aspects and physical body enable social robots to play human roles using gestures, vocalisations, and facial expressions BACKGROUND
  3. 3. Child-Robot Interaction (cHRI; Lupetti et al., 2019) differences with children due to language understanding, level of attention, developmental, and temperamental factors Robots seen as living beings (anthropomorphic) Do not notice processing issues (e.g., inappropriate responses) Using this existing theory in a new direction BACKGROUND
  4. 4. Advantages of social robots for children is primarily theoretical and not accessible beyond studies appearing in conferences and journals dedicated to robotics Past studies focus on education and learning - not engagement Majority of studies focus on autistic children and teaching English as a second language Previous research shows children like social robots, prefer to learn from them, and have positive attitudes towards them (e.g., Sidner et al., 2014) BACKGROUND
  5. 5. Preschooler’s overall engagement with robot vs human measured by behavioural engagement, vocalisations, and emotional engagement HRI studies show people engage more with robots than humans (e.g., Sidner, et al., 2004) H1: Children will be more engaged and attentive towards the social robot instructor rather than human instructor AIMS
  6. 6. Previous research shows a positive relationship between children’s home use of robots and interactions in an educational setting (Melenhorst & Bowshusi, 2004) H2: Positive relationship between children’s previous experiences with technology and engagement and communication with social robot AIMS
  7. 7. Multidisciplinary project focused on exploratory research Combination of qualitative (descriptive) and quantitative (statistical) methods both addressing the same aim Survey data analysed quantitatively (psychology) Behavioural observations (education) analysed qualitatively DESIGN
  8. 8. Within-subjects (repeated measures): all participants receive both conditions Independent Variable (IV): Instructor types Social robot instructor Human instructor DESIGN Dependent Variables (DV): Behavioural Engagement Emotional Engagement (Positive, Negative) Vocalisations (Task-Relevant, Device/Human-Relevant, Irrelevant) Number of Words Spoken Drawing Name Writing Smileyometer
  9. 9. Tools to measure DVs Phase 1: Introduction (4 components) Phase 2: Simon Says Game (12 components) Phase 3: Drawing & Writing (8 components) Phase 4: Conclusion (3 components) Each sentence of the script is one component DESIGN:INTERACTIONPHASES
  10. 10. N = 47 typically developing, English speaking preschoolers Age: 3-5 years Data collection at two preschools in South-East Queensland PARTICIPANTS
  11. 11. NAO humanoid social robot (version N05) Positive interactions with children in education Humanoid body, fixed face, and moveable arms 25 degrees of freedom Performs range of motor actions MATERIALS:NAOSOCIALROBOT
  12. 12. Systems interface includes microphones, speakers, and HD cameras Pre-programmed movements, gestures, and speech based on human NAO-specific, pre-programmed voice MATERIALS:NAOSOCIALROBOT
  13. 13. Behavioural Engagement: Directly responding to questions or directions (de Wit et al., 2018) e.g., “What is your name?” 19 components of four interaction phases Engagement present i.e., compliance (score of 1) or engagement absent i.e., non-compliant (score of 0) MATERIALS:BEHAVIOURALOBSERVATION
  14. 14. Emotional Engagement: Overt expressions Positive (Bai et al., 2016) e.g, smiling, clapping, laughing Negative (Kring & Sloan, 2007) e.g., yawning, frowning, shaking head Types and totals for both components Scored as present (score of 1) or absent (score of 0) MATERIALS:BEHAVIOURALOBSERVATION
  15. 15. Vocalisations: (Reich et al., 2019) Task-relevant e.g., “I have a dog!” Device-relevant e.g., NAO: “He’s talking to me!”; e.g., iPad: “How do I write?” Irrelevant e.g., “Time to eat!” Scored as present (score of 1) or absent (score of 0) Number of Words Spoken (type total and overall) MATERIALS:BEHAVIOURALOBSERVATIONS
  16. 16. CODING
  17. 17. Apple iPad Pro 12.9 inch (13.3.1) Writing/Drawing app (Neumann, 2018) Draw a picture of a dog Write your name Drawings assessed with a 7-point scale (Bloodgood, 1999) Name writing assessed with a 7-point scale (Neumann, 2018) MATERIALS:DRAWING+NAMEWRITING R1 H2
  18. 18. Enjoyment and Feedback Adapted from 3-point scale (Read and MacFarlane, 2006) to 5-point scale to prevent sensitivity to effects “What did you think about playing with NAO/Teacher today?” MATERIALS:SMILEYOMETER 54321 Smileyometer designed by Leigh-Chantelle. Based on Read, MacFarlane, & Casey (2002) Fun Toolkit
  19. 19. Parents completed online questionnaire with questions on: Demographics (e.g., marital status, education, language and cultural group, occupation and employment) Child information (e.g., age, gender, siblings, developmental problems) Digital technology and robotic toys: Children’s experience Parent’s feelings Ease of use for child Engagement frequency for parent and child Previously used by Neumann (2015; 2016; 2018) for digital home use and literacy with robots and robotic toys questions added MATERIALS:PARENTQUESTIONNAIRE
  20. 20. Research approval from university ethics and permission from managers of the two preschools Parents gave informed consent before the study as part of their online questionnaire Both interaction conditions (within subjects/repeated measures) counter-balanced to control for order effects Some children participated in both conditions on same day, others one condition on the first day and the second on the next day PROCEDURE
  21. 21. Preschoolers on cushion facing instructor in a quiet room Verbal consent gained with asking, “Are you ready to play?” Each interaction had four phases: introduction, Simon Says game, drawing (dog) and writing (name), and conclusion Immediate feedback with Smileyometer 3 minute interactions filmed on video camera PROCEDURE
  22. 22. Main effect of instructor group 2 (instructor type) x 3 (vocalisation type) within-subjects ANOVA for vocalisations 2 (instructor type) x 2 (emotional engagement type) within-subjects ANOVA for emotional engagement Repeated measures t-test for Behavioural engagement Number of words spoken Drawing Name Writing Smileyometer Correlations for previous technology experience, age, gender, SES ANALYSISTOCOME
  23. 23. HRI studies show people engage more with robots than humans (e.g., Sidner, et al., 2004) H1: Children will be more engaged and attentive towards the social robot instructor rather than human instructor Main effect of instructor group (human vs robot) NAO interactions expected to show more engagement across all interaction phases PREDICTEDRESULTS
  24. 24. Previous research shows a positive relationship between children’s home use of robots and interactions in an educational setting (Melenhorst & Bowshusi, 2004) H2: Positive relationship between children’s previous experiences with technology and engagement and communication with social robot A positive correlation is expected between level of children engagement with the social robot and previous home experience PREDICTEDRESULTS
  25. 25. Smiling and Nodding are the most used positive emotional engagements Most behavioural engagements from Phase 2: Simon Says game Not many vocalisations, but when someone was vocal they said a lot PRELIMINARYFINDINGS
  26. 26. Findings will better inform researchers in education if preschoolers are more engaged with a social robot or human Helps inform future research to effectively use social robots to engage young children in educational setting Positively support early learning IMPLICATIONS
  27. 27. WATCH video on YouTube VIEW slides on Slideshare click to access @leighchantelle THANKYOU

×